From Lorianne's viewpoint, it seems like a lack of sexual interest on the wife's part is a fact of life, to be accepted and lived with.
From my viewpoint (and I think fqued's and others), lack of sexual interest is a defect in the relationship, to be remedied (by whatever means necessary) before it damages the relationship.
If you were in a boat, and a fist-sized hole suddenly opened up below the waterline, most people would not just stare at it and go "how interesting". You would recognise it as something that must be fixed before the boat sinks. Similarly, a breach in the relationship must be fixed, quickly, before the marriage sinks
No, that is not my viewpoint.
From my viewpoint (and I think fqued's and others), lack of sexual interest is a defect in the relationship, to be remedied (by whatever means necessary) before it damages the relationship.
This is my viewpoint. To remedy the lack of interest.
If you were in a boat, and a fist-sized hole suddenly opened up below the waterline, most people would not just stare at it and go "how interesting". You would recognise it as something that must be fixed before the boat sinks. Similarly, a breach in the relationship must be fixed, quickly, before the marriage sinks
Right. IMO the action to repair the boat will not be done if one spouse simply accepts "obligation" sex and ignores the underlying problems. IMO, simply accepting things means simply accepting sex given under obligation and not trying to fix the relationship so that sex is a shared mutually satisfying experience. Allowing it to be one-sided under the pretext of obligation is ignoring the hole in the boat letting the boat sink.
So, why would a spouse want obligation sex? What is the end goal? Is it to just have sex regardless if the marriage is sinking?